advocatemmmohan

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, July 26, 2018

The respondents claiming to be the workmen of the appellants filed applications under Section 33­C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the Labour Court No. 2, Bombay (for short, “the Labour Court”) against the appellants claiming overtime wages for the work claimed to have been done by them in discharge of their duties for the period 1986 to 1990.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5152 OF 2017
Currency Note Press & Anr. .. Appellant(s)
Versus
N.N. Sardesai & Ors. .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 534 of
1997 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court
allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents
herein and set aside the order dated 16.02.1995
passed by the Labour Court and allowed the
applications of the respondents.
1
2. It may not be necessary to set out the facts in
detail except to the extent necessary to appreciate the
short issue involved in the appeal.
3. The question involved in the appeal is whether
the High Court was justified in allowing the
respondents’ (employees) writ petition and was,
therefore, justified in setting aside the order passed by
the Labour Court.
4. The appellants herein are body Corporate wholly
owned by and working under the control of Ministry of
Finance, Government of India and had been
specifically incorporated to take on the work of
printing currency notes and minting of coins along
with 7 other units. Their printing press is at
Nashik(Maharashtra). The respondents (total 17) at all
relevant times were the employees of the appellants’
printing press on different posts such as Junior
2
Accounts Officer/Head Accountants and Section
Officers.
5. The respondents claiming to be the workmen ofthe appellants filed applications under Section 33­C(2)of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the LabourCourt No. 2, Bombay (for short, “the Labour Court”)against the appellants claiming overtime wages for thework claimed to have been done by them in dischargeof their duties for the period 1986 to 1990. The
appellants on facts and law contested these
applications.
6. By order dated 16.02.1995, the Labour Court
dismissed the applications. The respondents felt
aggrieved and filed writ petition before the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay challenging the order of the
Labour Court.
7. By impugned order, the Single Judge allowed the
respondents’ writ petition and while setting aside the
3
order of the Labour Court allowed the respondents’
applications and granted them the monetary relief
claimed therein. It is against this order, the appellants
(employers) have felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by
way of special leave before this Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we are
inclined to dismiss the appeal on more than one
reason mentioned hereinbelow.
9. First, all the respondents (total 17) are now no
longer in service and have either retired from the
service or died; Second, the amount involved and
awarded to the respondents is not very sizable; Third,
it relates to the period from 1986­1990; Fourth, the
amount, pursuant to the impugned order, was already
paid long back to the respondents; and lastly, as
mentioned above, it relates to the overtime work
4
admittedly done by these respondents (employees)
while on duty.
10. In view of these five factual reasons, we are not
inclined to interfere in the impugned order of the High
Court.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants (employers),
however, argued several legal issues which, according
to him, arise in the case. These submissions relate to
interpretation of certain provisions of the Bombay
Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and the Factories
Act, 1948.
12. Keeping in view the five factual reasons set out
above which admittedly emerge from the record of the
case, we are not inclined to examine the legal
questions urged by the learned counsel for the
appellants and consider it proper to leave these
questions open for our decision on their merits in
some other case.
5
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
…..………………………………J.
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
.………………………………..J
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
New Delhi,
July 20, 2018
6